- https://the-mad-pirate-prints.teemill.com/
💀
@TheMadPirate
Mostly because the virus went through a few mutations since then.
@alyx Doesn’t people become more resistant to variants of a virus in time when they develop natural immunity ?. You know, like influenza’s seasonal variants.
@TheMadPirate
Not necessarily, depends a lot on the mutations themselves. The real problem though is only a small percentage of the population had the actual disease, and developed natural immunity. And even for those, we already know that antibody number go down in time. In any case, relying on people developing natural immunity could translate to the pandemic lasting decades.
> a few mutations since then
Strains have only become less deadly, and the vaccines are pushing the strains with ADE
> only a small percentage of the population had the actual disease
Some reports are saying basically 70% of the US population had it.
> relying on people developing natural immunity could translate to the pandemic lasting decades.
The vaccine wanes to 20% to 40% effectiveness after 6 months first off, so that's not a solution even just compared to natural immunuty which you're criticizing, second off, this is endemic, there's no getting rid of this, and vaccines killed more children in Canada than COVID which only killed 15 children as of last month.
It's clear you're confused, but maybe if you could back some of it up with sources, for instance, the idea that strains are more deadly, where are you getting this? Also, without any trustworthy large scale testing, the data we have is meaningless, and the PCR in January on the day of Biden's inauguration was adjusted from its false-positive-prone 37 cycles to a much more reasonable 24 cycles, despite the fact it's not designed or intended to be used for testing, according to its own creator, and also one PCR test's EUA was revoked for providing too many false positives, something people have been screaming about. Can you prove "natural immunity" (a phrase which was made up in 2020) otherwise known as immunity, is worse than vaccination? From what I understand, as well has been known for decades, that immunity is always better than vaccination as long as the patient actually survives with no major or moderate problems.
@coyote @TheMadPirate
There are more people who have died because there are far more people who are getting infected now, because the strain mutated to be much more infectious.
I've said nothing about the strain itself inherently more deadly, but dishonest people like yourself do nothing but put words in people's mouth.
I have no interest in any further conversation, because it would be pointless to talk to someone who does nothing but throw anything you can the wall, hoping something sticks. Your entire post is nothing but gish gallop and I have no interest in it.
@coyote @TheMadPirate
Your a moron. Goodbye.
> if you could back some of it up with sources, for instance, the idea that strains are more deadly, where are you getting this?
> Can you prove "natural immunity" (a phrase which was made up in 2020) otherwise known as immunity, is worse than vaccination?
I was also waiting to see if he'd bite on the PCR test being adjusted and then discontinued but I guess that was NBD just par for the course, totally normal to use a test that cannot do its job to be used for two years and silently toyed with. Whatever.
@coyote No one will bother with dishonest hacks like yourself.
> There are more people who have died because there are far more people who are getting infected now, because the strain mutated to be much more infectious.
Let's look at Israel, Gibraltar, Iceland, and other small countries and look at their vaccination rate: 95+% double shots. Let's look at their death rates? Worse than they've ever been. Huh.
If disease A kills 10 out of 100 people infected, that's a mortality rate of 10%.
If disease B kills 1 out of 100 people, that's a mortality rate of 1%.
Disease A has a higher mortality rate. It doesn't matter that disease A only infects 100 people and disease B infects 10000 people, we still say disease A has a higher mortality rate.
This is why you're a moron and why you're not worth taking seriously.
@alyx
You' just talking about things you don't understand. Of course, the mortality rate of the desease A is way lower than the mortality rate of the desease B.
You can't tell the mortaIity rate from the case fatality rate while these are totally different terms. That's why it's you who are not worth taking seriously.
@coyote @TheMadPirate
First off none of this has anything to do with what I said but let's go through this:
> There are more people who have died because there are far more people who are getting infected now, because the strain mutated to be much more infectious.
And then THE NEXT SENTENCE
> I've said nothing about the strain itself inherently more deadly
You contradicted yourself, by not understanding the word "deadly" incorrectly. If a viruses virulence goes up further than it's ability to kill, and more people are dying as a result of it, is it more deadly? You'd have to be either braindead or a midwit high off koolaid to think otherwise.
Not only did you contradict yourself but you're dodging answering for the three very specific questions I have, and dodging everything else I've had to say except the very first fucking sentence.
You're being lazy, are you not a fucking man? Put your money where your mouth is and back your shit up.